Commissioner of Police v Sas Trustee Corporation and another [2002] NSWIRComm 382 (17 December 2002)

Last Updated: 18 November 2003

NEW SOUTH WALES INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION : Commissioner of Police v SAS Trustee Corporation and another [2002] NSWIRComm 382

FILE NUMBER(S): IRC4218

HEARING DATE(S): 17/12/2002

EX TEMPORE DATE: 17/12/2002

PARTIES:

APPELLANT

Commissioner of Police

RESPONDENTS

First Respondent

SAS Trustee Corporation

Second Respondent

Karyn Gitsham

JUDGMENT OF: Walton J Vice-President Kavanagh J Boland J

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

APPELLANT

Mr Williams of Senior Counsel

Mr R Perrignon of Counsel

Solicitor:

Mr P Vrachnas

New South Wales Police, Legal Services

FIRST RESPONDENT

Mr T Ower of Counsel

Solicitor:

Mr B Matthews

Disputes and Appeals, SAS Trustee Corporation

SECOND RESPONDENT

Mr P Menzies of Senior Counsel

Mr M Walsh of Counsel

Solicitor:

Ms K Smith

Oates & Smith, Solicitors

CASES CITED:

LEGISLATION CITED: Superannuation Administration Act 1996 s88

Industrial Relations Act 1996 s188

Police (Superannuation) Act 1906

JUDGMENT:

- 1 -

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

IN COURT SESSION

FULL BENCH

CORAM: WALTON J, VICE-PRESIDENT

KAVANAGH J

BOLAND J

TUESDAY 17 DECEMBER 2002

MATTER NO. IRC4218 OF 2002

IRC2002/4218 - COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SAS TRUSTEE CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

Application by Commissioner of Police for leave to appeal and appeal against an extempore decision of Justice Wright given on 21 February 2002 in Matter No IRC2001/6858

DECISION

(Extempore)

[2002] NSWIRComm 382

1 WALTON VP: This is an application for leave to appeal and, if granted, appeal against a decision of Wright J, President, on 20 February 2002. The matter concerns a narrow question as to whether the Commissioner of Police is or may be a "person aggrieved" by a determination of the SAS Trustee Corporation for the purposes of s88 of the Superannuation Administration Act 1996.

2 We determine leave to appeal should be refused. We do not consider the appeal has the requisite importance for the purposes of s188 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. We consider the appeal lacks sufficient utility and importance, having regard to the fact that the superannuation scheme (arising under the Police Regulations (Superannuation) Act 1906) closed to new members on 1 April 1988 and the existence and content of the Heads of Agreement reached between the appellant and the respondents.

3 While some 5000 officers remain in the scheme, the current issue has not previously emerged. It cannot be assumed a similar dispute will arise in relation to those officers as activated in these proceedings.

4 Further, we do not consider the decision at first instance demonstrates any error of principle or law as may warrant the grant of leave.

5 We order:

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

2. The appeal is dismissed.

3. The appellant shall pay the costs of the second respondent on the appeal, including the mention on Friday last in relation to these proceedings.

LAST UPDATED: 01/04/2003